Replies to post #95928 on Zerify Inc (ZRFY)

[RDY2ROCK]

Stop ignoring factual info provided right in the SEC filings! LOL!

It was NOT one lump sum payment!!

Provide proof where Mr. Kay said there wasn't going to be Royalty payments! LMAO!

January 15, 2016, the parties reached a settlement in the matter. As part of the settlement, the Company received a payment in January 2016 of $9,750,000 and incurred fees related to the settlement of $4,187,257.

We have four GuardedID products, (i) a standard version which protects browser data entry only, (ii) a premium version which protects almost all the applications running under Microsoft Windows on the desktop, including Microsoft Office Suite and almost all applications running on the desktop, (iii) an Enterprise version which, in addition, provides the Enterprise administrative rights and the use of Microsoft's Enterprise tools for the product's deployment, and (iv) an Apple MAC version for all the latest MAC operating systems and for the browsers and entire desktop.

Of course the above is located right in the last 10-Q, just need to comprehend correctly what's being said!
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1285543/000147793216011841/sfor_10q.htm

[Pennydream]

One sum "and" deals that were confidential ! Read all in front of you when court deems it confidential it means he cant say .. Pretty simple to understand . Sure some speculation but with the given facts im sure confidentiality isnt to prevent embarrassment lol but rather protect fwd looking products